ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
The optimal measurement method considering reliability and validity in the anterior knee laxity of anterior cruciate ligament tears.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of clinical, radiological, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes between hamstring autograft and tibialis allograft following remnant-tensioning anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo seek an optimal measurement method with high reliability and high validity for evaluation of the anterior knee laxity on stress radiographs and comparing the translation values to those of KT-2000 arthrometer.
methodsAnterior knee laxity in 77 patients was measured preoperatively using the TelosTM and the KT-2000 arthrometer. Side-to-side difference measurements were taken using three conventional measuring methods and one proposed method (Modified Lateral). The knee position on the stress radiograph was evaluated and scored based on the stress radiograph qualifying criteria depending on stress film correctiveness. Intraclass correlation coefficients were analyzed to evaluate the reliability of the measurement methods and were compared between high (Group H) and low (Group L) radiograph quality score groups for each method. Validity was assessed by comparing the KT-2000 and the TelosTM using Pearson correlation (r value).
resultsThe Modified Lateral method showed the best Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs), followed by Center to Center, and Medial to Medial and Lateral to Lateral methods without considering the quality of Telos. In the comparison between groups based on Telos quality for intra-rater reliability, the Medial to Medial (MM) method demonstrated the best reliability in both groups (MM: ICCs, Group H = 0.942, Group L = 0.917, P = 0.693). As for inter-rater reliability, the Modified Lateral (ML) method exhibited the best reliability in both groups (ML: ICCs, Group H = 0.923, Group L = 0.882, P = 0.547). The value measured using the ML method in Telos showed the highest correlation coefficient with the KT-2000 measured value in both groups H and L. There were no statistically significant differences among the correlation coefficient values.
conclusionThe Modified Lateral method is recommended for its high reliability, taking into account the differences in bilateral knee positions and anatomical discriminability on stress radiographs when evaluating anterior knee translation with Telos. It also best reflected the KT-2000 arthrometer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case Series, Level IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39105832What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.